Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Will Use Robots to Patrol Water Supply

bl8n8r writes "By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply. Realtime environmental details will be used to help safeguard the nations drinking water. The robots would take on the painstaking, time consuming, and sometimes dangerous, task of collecting water samples which is currently being done by carbon based lifeforms."

25 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Can robots pee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's certainly hope not.

    1. Re:Can robots pee? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Can robots pee?"

      Give me a week and I'll make one that can.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  2. Obligatory Simpsons by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Funny

    And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
    Thanks SNPP!
  3. Not quite... by KevinKnSC · · Score: 5, Informative
    By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply.

    The article only mentions a project to monitor the Seneca River, some connected lakes, and an existing system that monitors part of the water supply for New York City. That's not quite "the nation's fresh water supply," although it is certainly a promising technology.

  4. Why use robots? by EulerX07 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't it be easier to just use sharks mounted with lasers on their friggin' heads?

  5. ...and sometimes dangerous... by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh please, will someone please think of the robots!

    Wait till they unionize, we're fucked.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  6. Bender by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are robots any more trustworthy than humans, and less likely to pee in the water just to get back at their fleshy masters?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  7. Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have this image of a man pulling over to pee in a resevoir, only to have a many tentacled robot emerge from the water to cut off the source of pollution.

  8. Re:This is awesome by Paulrothrock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As my dad likes to say: "Environmentalism doesn't mean shivering in the dark." Just by thinking about a better way to solve a problem, you can make things more efficient without sacrificing anything. New technology or old, it's all in how you use it.

    Case in point: He built a water preheater out of some foil-backed foam insulation, some pipe, black paint, and a 55 gallon drum. He built a box out of the insulation with the foil facing in, painted the drum black, and hooked it up between the water supply and the hot water heater. On sunny days it gets the water hot with free energy before sending it to the water heater. This reduces the amount of paid energy he had to use. Total material cost: $100. And it saved him $175 in the first year.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  9. Hentai by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny
    "I have this image of a man pulling over to pee in a resevoir, only to have a many tentacled robot emerge from the water to cut off the source of pollution"

    You've been watching too much hentai. No more anime for YOU!

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  10. And in other news... by Phanatik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Millions die from water contaminated by rusty robots.

  11. No more skinny dipping... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know if it will make the US's lakes and rivers safer but I bet they'll be less skinny dipping.

  12. Wouldn't it make more sense... by FFFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to actually implement and enforce some decent environmental standards? AFAIK, the past four years has been a tremendous step backwards regarding water quality regulations.

    In other words, patrolling the rivers isn't going to do a goddamn bit of good when whatever minimal laws don't even have any teeth.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    1. Re:Wouldn't it make more sense... by happyfrogcow · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're new here aren't you? and by here I mean the U.S.

      And by new, i mean about to be secretely detained under the PATRIOT act.

  13. Re:Power? by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are these robots going to be powered by fish flatulence, by chance?

    No way! Everyone knows that robots beat up old people and use their medicine for fuel. Hope you have enough robot insurance.

    Cheers,
    IT

    --

    Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

  14. Re:This is awesome by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you know that the alien/accidental mussel called the zebra mussel has cause more of an increase in water quality increase in the great lakes than ANYTHING ever done by any technological means?

    one little creature filters a bunch of fricking water a day.... about 3 gallons worth... now couple that with the things INSANE reproduction rate.

    the best solution is not technology but finguring out how to use the natural systems that are so hugely more efficient than anything we can design.

    Lake michigan is clearer than I ever remember... and Lake erie is actually looking like it's containing water and not industrial waste anymore.

    Granted, it IS trasnferring the problem into the sediment as these buggers die, but now it's in a location we can clean easier than the raw water.

    anyways, Cince I live near the absolute largest fresh water supply on the planet, why havent we seen any of these things being tested, talked about,etc... the NOAA research station here has nothing about them, and nither does the University of Michigan research station...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Great by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Funny

    National Security brought to you by Aibo.

  16. I've actually met these robots. by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had a conversation with these robots, and they explained to me how they will protect me from water-borne pollutants.

    The first one declared that his function was to push a water sample into a purification chamber. The second one then declared that his function was to shove pollutants out of the water.

    After a brief debate over which function was superior, they agreed that water-borne pollutants have a terrible power. Then they politely asked me to go stand by the stairs. That was weird.

    --
    "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
  17. I want one! by stienman · · Score: 4, Funny

    By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply

    Hah, they have robots in there now.

    I've been slowly leeching arsenic into my pipes trying to lure it to my workshop.

    -Adam

  18. Misleading Commentary by hndrcks · · Score: 4, Informative

    "... task of collecting water samples..."

    We have been using 'robots' to collect water samples for many years - I believe the article states that the new breed of robots will directly sense the water quality, with no sampling required. A small but important semantic difference.

    --
    Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
  19. Weather stations did this by hpulley · · Score: 4, Informative

    Recently in Canada a good number of weather stations went from human operated to just a set of instruments and a network connection. It does save money but you occasionally get wonky readings like a "Recent snowshower" in July which a human would never report. Perhaps better programming could be used to ensure that multiple readings are used to filter out extraneous data but there will always be a need for at least a few carbon-based testers to go out there and install them, maintain them and check them when they act up. Similar issues will likely appear with robotic water testing.

    --
    $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
  20. The cost savings are tremendous by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny
    The robots would take on the painstaking, time consuming, and sometimes dangerous, task of collecting water samples which is currently being done by carbon based lifeforms.
    I think we should all hail this as an amazing achievement. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the cost to train your average water-quality inspector runs in excess of $40,000. When you consider that your average water inspector might taste no more than 4-5 samples before falling over dead from intestinal parasites, terrorism-related poisoning or environmental toxins, that's a heavy price tag. Don't get me wrong -- there's still no better way to test the quality of local water than to feed it to a human being and see what happens. But this is one job that I, for one, have no qualms turning over to robotic replacements. I'm just afraid that this plan is on a collision course with the local water-quality-tester unions, who I'm sure will have something to say about these mechanical "temp workers."
    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  21. Water sampling is getting easier every day by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Judging from the combination of drought in the west and the rate that water is being drawn from sources around the country, water sampling will soon consist of wading out and scooping up some muddy water. Hell, the problem may go away entirely:

    Lake Powell Article

    Lake Powell Photo

    Lake Powell Satellite Image

    Ipswich River in Mass

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  22. Carbon based Life forms? by An-Unnecessarily-Lon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jeeze... We are right here. You dont need to talk about us like that.

  23. Re:This is awesome by shawb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, zebra mussels do CLEAR the water, but they do not CLEAN it. What they do is they remove all the sediment that other creatures oftem feed on, thus making it unavailable. However, they pass most pollutants right on (except for some heavy metals and such which they bioaccumulate like crazy, poisoning any creatures which then eat them.)

    And the clearing of the water actually causes problems in and of itself. There is still a super high nutrient load in the water, and the extra light allowed in causes several noxious weeds to grow out of control, choking out most normal vegetation, destroying habitat several animals use (especially for egg laying) and choke waterways from human navigation.

    While their unchecked growth in the wild does cause problens, zebra mussels could make an interesting part of a constructed bioremediation system (at least in waterways which are already infected by the zebras anyways.)

    A couple of links on zebra mussels:
    Wisconsin DNR
    Minnesota Sea Grant
    Missouri Department of Conservation
    Iowa DNR

    And slightly more technical link outlinking some ofthe risks of overfiltration

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman